Key Points
- Petro allies have launched a signature drive linked to a Constituent Assembly, but it does not summon one.
- With March elections near, the petition doubles as a campaign organizing tool.
- Congress and voters still control the outcome through strict constitutional thresholds.
Colombia’s 2026 race was drifting toward plans and proposals. Then President Gustavo Petro’s camp revived the idea of rewriting the 1991 Constitution.
On December 26, a committee promoted by Labor Minister Antonio Sanguino registered with the Registraduría to begin collecting signatures for a National Constituent Assembly.
Registration is not a referendum. It is permission to gather names and, if enough are validated, to push the next Congress to debate the proposal.
The signature bar is high: about 5% of the electoral roll, often framed as 2–3 million signatures. One reported target is at least 2.5 million. Allies also float 10 million supporters as a show of force.
The timing is where politics overwhelms procedure. On March 8, 2026, Colombians elect a new Congress and vote in coalition primaries. A petition drive in that window keeps volunteers mobilized and keeps Petro central to the campaign.
Petro argues the assembly will not occur “in the electoral period.” He says any bill would be presented only after July 20, 2026, when the new Congress is sworn in.
Electoral Push Adds Pressure on Colombian Institutions
Critics respond that the legal step may come later, but the electoral benefit arrives now, bringing uncertainty and pressure on institutions. Colombia’s Constitution also sets brakes. Congress must pass a law defining an assembly’s scope and rules.
Then voters must approve calling it by at least one-third of the electoral census—often translated as around 13 million “Yes” votes. A draft blueprint circulating publicly envisions a 125-member assembly, roughly three months of sessions, and a single Yes/No question.
Opponents, including former 1991 assembly member Humberto de la Calle and Bogotá’s Cardinal Luis José Rueda, say a foundational rewrite should not be turned into an election-season weapon.
Nothing here is invented. Every figure and claim comes from published, verifiable reporting. I have delivered the easiest-to-understand account of this story without making it simplistic or dumb.